Aquino v. Atienza

THIRD DIVISION

[A.M. No. P-14-3183. July 10, 2017.]

ATTY. JOHN V. AQUINO, complainant,vs. ROMEO A. ATIENZA, PROCESS SERVER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES-OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT [MTCC-OCC], OLONGAPO CITY, ZAMBALES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated July 10, 2017, which reads as follows:

"A.M. No. P-14-3183 (Atty. John V. Aquino v. Romeo A. Atienza, Process Server, Municipal Trial Court in Cities-Office of the Clerk of Court [MTCC-OCC], Olongapo City, Zambales). — This administrative case stemmed from a letter dated July 5, 2010 wherein complainant Atty. John V. Aquino (Atty. Aquino), Clerk of Court VI, Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC), Olongapo City, charged respondent Romeo A. Atienza (Atienza), Process Server, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC)-OCC, Olongapo City, Zambales with violation of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. HTcADC

ANTECEDENT FACTS

On May 25, 2010, Atienza together with a certain Daisy M. Simbajon (Simbajon) went to the OCC of Olongapo City to submit requirements for the solemnization of the latter's marriage. 1

Upon a perusal, however, of the marriage license submitted by Simbajon, it was discovered that the signature appearing therein was a forgery. When asked to explain, Atienza pointed to a certain Benjamin Tulio (Tulio), Utility Worker in the MTCC, Branch 4 of Olongapo City, as the one who processed the said marriage license. 2

After verification, the Local Civil Registrar of San Marcelino, Zambales confirmed that the signature of Engineer Antonio C. Escobar, Municipal Civil Registrar therein was forged. Also, it was found out that the subject marriage license was already issued to different individuals in 2009. 3

Consequently, Atty. Aquino submitted an incident report to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for proper action. 4

On September 7, 2010, the OCA issued its 1st Indorsement 5 wherein it referred the matter to Hon. Norman V. Pamintuan (Judge Pamintuan), Executive Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Olongapo City, Zambales, for investigation and report within 30 days therefrom:

In his Report 6 dated December 3, 2010, Judge Pamintuan recommended that proper penalty be imposed against Atienza after finding that he received from Simbajon the amount of Php2,500 for the processing of the latter's marriage requirements.

Judge Pamintuan pointed out that Atienza, as Process Server, has no authority to meddle on marriage matters and he could have just referred the same to the proper government offices who will issue the necessary requirements for solemnization of marriages. Thus, there is no reason for him to collect any amount as payment for his assistance in the facilitation of Simbajon's marriage requirements. 7

Acting on Judge Pamintuan's Report, the OCA issued its Memorandum 8 dated November 3, 2011, wherein it recommended that the letter-complaint dated July 5, 2010 of Atty. Aquino be docketed as an IPI case and that Atienza be directed to file his comment on the allegations against him.

In his Comment dated January 20, 2012, Atienza narrated that he merely accompanied Simbajon in submitting her marriage requirements and at that time, she already had with her the subject marriage license which was processed by Tulio. 9

RESOLUTION OF THE

On September 10, 2013, Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez and Deputy Court Administrator, Jenny Lind R. Aldecoa-Delorino, issued their Report and Recommendation 10 wherein they recommended the re-docketing of the instant administrative complaint against Atienza as a regular administrative matter. Further, they recommended that Atienza be suspended for a period of one year without salaries and other benefits for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

RULING OF THE COURT

Except for the penalty, the Court finds that the recommendation of the OCA is proper under the circumstances.

In several occasions, the Court reiterated the heavy burden and responsibility of court personnel. They have been constantly reminded that any impression of impropriety, misdeed or negligence in the performance of their official functions must be avoided. Thus, this Court does not hesitate to condemn and sanction such improper conduct, act or omission of those involved in the administration of justice that violates the norm of public accountability and diminishes or tends to diminish the faith of the public in the Judiciary. 11

Here, the Court finds the behavior and conduct of Atienza to be wanting of the exacting standards of ethics imposed upon court employees. Records show that Atienza himself admitted to have received from Simbajon the amount of Php2,500 to facilitate the latter's marriage requirements. Moreover, the Court cannot give credence to Atienza's defense of pinpointing to Tulio as the one who allegedly produced the spurious license. As correctly observed by the OCA, there is sufficient proof to establish Atienza's involvement in the illegal scheme. The Memorandum in part states:

Nowhere in the TSN would it show that Benjamin Tulio was with respondent Atienza prior to or at the time of the required documents for solemnization of marriage were presented by Ms. Simbajon before complainant Aquino. In fact, it was respondent Atienza who personally took an active role in facilitating the application for marriage solemnization of Ms. Simbajon. x x x. 12

As to the proper penalty, Rule X, Section 46 B of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service penalizes Conduct prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service with suspension for six months and one day to one year for the first offense and dismissal for the second. In the present case, considering Atienza's long service in the government and that this is his first offense, the Court finds that a penalty of suspension for six months and one day is commensurate. aScITE

WHEREFORE, because of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, Romeo A. Atienza, Process Server, Municipal Trial Court in Cities-Office of the Clerk of Court, Olongapo City, Zambales is hereby SUSPENDED for six months and one day with a STERNWARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. (Jardeleza, J.,onwellnessleave.)

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

 

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, p. 3.

2.Ibid.

3.Ibid.

4.Id. at 3-4.

5.Id. at 12.

6.Id. at 13-17.

7.Id. at 15.

8.Id. at 1-2.

9.Id. at 61.

10.Id. at 60-65.

11.Villaceran et al. v. Judge Rosete et al., A.M. No. MTJ-08-1727, March 22, 2011.

12.Rollo, p. 63.